Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday May 05, 2011 @05:30PM
from the just-a-polite-note-from-the-well-armed-neighbors dept.

Davis Freeberg writes "The Department of Homeland Security is hard at work again, protecting the industry from websites that the big studios don't want you to see. This time they're targeting the Mafiaafire plugin by asking Mozilla to disable the addon at the root level. Instead of blindly complying with the government's request, Mozilla has decided to ask some tough questions instead. Unsurprisingly, when faced with legitimate concerns about the legality of their domain seizure program, the DHS has decided to clam up."

>>>Blind compliance to government demands is anti-American and it saddens me to see so many people simply fall in line.

I had a former classmate call me an "idiot" because I refused to let my car be searched by the Homeland SA. He's right that it would be easier to comply, but the law is the law. I obey the law and I expect government employees to obey the law too.

No search without court-issued warrant,and affirmed by oath before the judge.

Now I'm willing to bend that a little bit, like if a mass murderer just escaped from prison, but not while I'm trying to enjoy a nice summer drive and no emergency exists. They've ALL sworn to obey that law. So let them obey it, instead of ignoring it.

This story is one of the main reasons why. Instead of doing the job the government was created to do (protect individual rights from thieves, murderers, etc), the politicians/bureaucrats are the ones doing the infringing on those rights.

I love America because Mozilla can do what they did, and are right by it.

I also enjoy exercising my free speech and calling you a fucking idiot.

"If it were possible to have no government, we would do so. It is only to protect our rights that we resort to any government at all." - Thomas Jefferson.

"only to protect our rights" in no way minimizes the role of government.

What rights are you quibbling about, right to an Internet domain name? Sorry, not buying it. Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.

This is a strange way to look at it, since it presumes that you know something about what sites whose names may be seized. I can understand that, since the seizures are currently being characterized as being for anti-piracy purposes, so if you're not into piracy, it makes sense to believe this won't affect you.

But as usual with runaway government, one of the main reasons people are so pissed about this has more to do with the lack of due process than the stated agenda itself. You don't know that only "bad" sites will be seized, because no one is overseeing the seizures and watching the watchers. You only have their word that they've only been interfering with piracy-related sites, therefore you only have their word that you have no reason to go to the kinds of sites which may be seized. This is purely an article of faith, and really has nothing to do with the kinds of sites that you visi-- oh, wait, I get it. You only go to pro-government-religion sites. Aha. Ok, never mind, I believe you now.

I've argued on the wrong side of this, too, but the fact is that if DHS doesn't care about the law, then you should not make things easier for them by complying, and further opening yourself up to the risk of greater infractions. And if they do care about the law, then it shouldn't hurt you to refuse the search.

Plus, if you've got nothing to hide, then getting searched is just a waste of everyone's time.

Not quite as many as you think. If you'd like some more specific scientific insight into this, I would highly recommend that you read this [umanitoba.ca] free e-book by a psychology professor who has spent the last several decades studying these sort of issues. It's a really easy read and I guarantee that you'll learn some new things about authoritarian followers that you didn't know.

Mafiaafire appears to be unlisted, as browsing through the list of extensions reveals no such program [mozilla.org]. Did Mozilla cave in to DHS demands despite their initial refusal, or was the software never listed in the first place?